I’ve been joing a few atheist forums recently to try to find like minded people to discuss current events and our response to them. I see every forums as an opportunity to share, learn and grow with others. I recently joined Atheistforums.com As I posted here in my introductions I posted there, I am a member of the National Atheist Party. I was met with not just resistance but what I would call hate and bullying b/c of my affiliation with that organization. I posted 2 things on the N.A.P. and everyone was shot down and I was harrassed with explitives about them. I was merely posting to keep ppl updated with campaigns and current events that I found interesting. I commented and shared on other posts as well, trying to learn from others and what they shared. It all culminated with them calling me an uneducated idiot b/c I was part of the N.A.P. and banning me. I never expected that result and was hurt and offended. I backed up all my posts with sources and evidence and was always polite dispite the fact that they were so rude to me and I got banned none the less
I know not all atheists will agree with me or the NAP, that is why we are individuals but I had hoped Atheists would be open minded and not try to crush something they dont believe in. Has anyone else had this happen to them?

I’m not sure what the policy is here about linking to other forums but could you possibly post a link to the threads you are talking about. I’m curious to see what you said that got you banned. If you can;t post it here just IM it to me.

Signature

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

After digging around a few seconds, I found this thread. Yes, the guys over there were harsh, but they did raise some valid objections to your party. I also checked the National Atheist Party website. The design is clean, but the staff comes across as a bunch of college students who got together on Facebook and decided to form a local club. Troy Boyle’s post on the thread linked above makes me think your party is not going to last long.

I don’t care how other people perceive the name. I don’t care about brand-identity or any of the notions lofted in this forum

If the president of your organization does not care what people think about the name or about branding you are going to fail.

And while I agree some of the posters at atheistforums.com came down on you pretty hard, they made some valid points. Atheism cannot be pigeon-holed into a political party. Atheism is disbelief in a god, not a political philosophy. I think y’all are in over your heads, and I do not want a bunch of naive kids representing me in the public eye. Your party president should care what people think about the name because the name sounds like a political party and people will think of it as a political party: as such your organization can potentially do great harm to atheists in this country. You can potentially do great good too, but reading that thread and looking over your website I doubt anyone in your party has the experience, political savvy and wisdom to accomplish much of anything.

As for why you got banned: you know why. One of the moderators accused you of sock puppetry. I’m not saying your were guilty of that offense, but the moderator over there thought so and it was her decision.

Signature

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Whle we are really quick to ban spammers but slower to ban trolls, we go far out of our way to allow a wide variety of opinions and ideas. Nothing you have said here, C.C., would come close to your even being warned. However, I’ve had the opposite experience with some of the other forums. I’ve gone on them, posted for a while then realized that while we may have similar views about religion, they were irratiional extremists. So, they didn’t ban me, I banned them. Every once in a while I get an e-mail asking why I’m no longer posting. I just smile and delete it.

You just have to recognize that atheism doesn’t always equate with rationality or reasonableness.

While, as an antique fud, I doubt that a National Atheist Party would get too far, I know that any efforts like this are valuable because they bring the views to the attention of more and more people.

Didn’t notice any worms or snakes, but I do agree with the one comment on that thread that says atheism is apolitical - hence, an atheist party makes no sense when thoroughly considered. But I do think it’s a great idea for every party to have. In fact isn’t there a document around that says religion is not supposed to enter into the political arena?

. . . I do agree with the one comment on that thread that says atheism is apolitical - hence, an atheist party makes no sense when thoroughly considered. But I do think it’s a great idea for every party to have. In fact isn’t there a document around that says religion is not supposed to enter into the political arena?

(My bold) Oh, if it were only so. I think atheists would be far less interested in having a political voice if the religious weren’t so vocal in forcing their ideas on all throughout the political process.

As long as the right wing religious evangelists get strongly involved in pressuring politicians into voting for “Christian Values” or do things like the Utah Mormon church running and financing the successful California proposition to delegalize gay marriage, I think the non-theists have a right, nay, a duty to get involved in politics in opposition to them.

. . . I do agree with the one comment on that thread that says atheism is apolitical - hence, an atheist party makes no sense when thoroughly considered. But I do think it’s a great idea for every party to have. In fact isn’t there a document around that says religion is not supposed to enter into the political arena?

(My bold) Oh, if it were only so. I think atheists would be far less interested in having a political voice if the religious weren’t so vocal in forcing their ideas on all throughout the political process.

As long as the right wing religious evangelists get strongly involved in pressuring politicians into voting for “Christian Values” or do things like the Utah Mormon church running and financing the successful California proposition to delegalize gay marriage, I think the non-theists have a right, nay, a duty to get involved in politics in opposition to them.

Occam

Exactly! But that should be part of a larger platform. Not solely an “atheist party”. It seems to me that, broadly speaking, the Dem party holds most of us as members (not all, of course).

I understand not everyone likes the idea of the National Atheist Party and I like discussing it in a positive way. I felt like AtheistForums.com was a little too negarive and harsh for me, maybe I’m being weak but I didn’t appreciate the discussions there either. I also understand that our party comes off as seeming to be one issue orientated but we have other platform issues that are voted on by members and we dont seek to represent all atheists, just as the NAACP doesnt represent all “colored people”. I think the National Atheist Party is not needed in many countries but lately I have found that it is drastically necessary to speak up in our country where religion has a stronger presence than it should in our government. We should push back against the movement that has established us as a “Christian Nation” in the eyes of other countries.

I understand not everyone likes the idea of the National Atheist Party and I like discussing it in a positive way. I felt like AtheistForums.com was a little too negarive and harsh for me, maybe I’m being weak but I didn’t appreciate the discussions there either. I also understand that our party comes off as seeming to be one issue orientated but we have other platform issues that are voted on by members and we dont seek to represent all atheists, just as the NAACP doesnt represent all “colored people”. I think the National Atheist Party is not needed in many countries but lately I have found that it is drastically necessary to speak up in our country where religion has a stronger presence than it should in our government. We should push back against the movement that has established us as a “Christian Nation” in the eyes of other countries.

Hi. I am new to this topic so I hope you won’t mind my jumping in. Your analogy of the NAACP is an interesting one. But the NAACP is more like any of the many groups that represent the varied interests of atheists/secularists/humanists than it is a political party, no? It’s not the “Colored People Party”. I think the reasons for that are obvious enough. In a similar way, as secular people, our common interests are not exclusive to politics, nor are our various political aims unique to secular people. For this reason (and others, mostly pragmatic), I agree with those who have stated a dislike for the idea of an atheist political party.

In my opinion, most of us are aligned most closely with social progressives and as such, I find that our interests often correlate fairly highly with the more liberal Christian groups, who are often at the forefront of church-state separation and social justice issues. But of course this doesn’t apply to all of us.

Signature

Free in Kentucky—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

I see that there are some organizations that rally for great causes and do not align themselves with atheists. Our name is to simply suggest that our main basis for separation of church and state and all actions that uphold this. People have tried to argue that Atheism and Politics are mutually exclusive, and I would disagree. Though they are not mutually inclusive many times, especially in America there is a need to affirm an atheist presence in politics to match the religious presence in politics. Much like in Science there is an equal reaction to every action. I hope that for every religion based exclusionary law that gets proposed there is a strong enough organization willing to stand up and shout how it is wrong and to take action against it. The National Atheist Party could be one of those organizations but it does not claim to want to be the only one. I encourage people to get involved in any way. If they don’t feel comfortable joining the party I would ask they find another outlet. Nothing annoys me more is someone who has time enough to sit around and complain about the problems with the system but it too busy to take action

I had a discussion on facebook about the NAP recently and there I argued, doesn’t “democrat” also imply pro-democracy and “republican” imply pro-republic, yet they both don’t really mean that and everyone knows it? Why should the NAP be expected to be any different? Politics is politics. Perception is more important than logic, unfortunately.

Signature

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. People should be arguing policies and what action can be taken to rally around a cause we can all agree on, stand around arguing about what to call it

I had a discussion on facebook about the NAP recently and there I argued, doesn’t “democrat” also imply pro-democracy and “republican” imply pro-republic, yet they both don’t really mean that and everyone knows it? Why should the NAP be expected to be any different? Politics is politics. Perception is more important than logic, unfortunately.

Sure, but democracy and republic are related to government models. Atheist is not a model for government. In fact, it excludes most of the persons living in this country (sadly). A better name might include “secular” so that those who are theists could also participate and simply understand that their religious beliefs are separate (as it is supposed to be now).

While it may smell as sweet, if a rose were to be nicknamed shit-stick, I wouldn’t try to impress my wife with one. The same is true of the term atheist, as compared to secular.